U.S. Government Printing Office
Contract Appeals Board

Appeal of Decal Graphics, Inc.
August 8, 1978

Vincent T. McCarthy Chairman
Jay E. Eisen, Member
Drew Spalding, Member
Panel 78-8

This is an appeal filed on December 6, 1977, by Decal Graphics, Inc., 67 Mill Street, Amityville,
N.Y. 11701, herein also referred to as the contractor or appellant,under the "Disputes" clause of
the contract, Article 29, U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1, concerning Jacket
No. 715-968, Purchase Order C-8480 and Jacket No. 715-969, Purchase Order C-8481.

I. Findings of Fact

a. This case arises out of a contract entered into by Decal Graphics,.Inc. and the U.S. Government
Printing Office, Printing Procurement Department, Regional Procurement Office, New York, N.Y.,
herein referred to as the GPO, for the production of 3,000 officer's decals (blue) and 10,000
enlisted men's decals (red) for the U.S. Navy.  They were intended for use of Navy personnel on
their privately owned vehicles for identification and parking permits.

b. Jacket 715-968 and Jacket 715-969 are fixed price agreements for the procurement of the
automobile bumper decals, trim size 5" x 3", to be numbered in sequence in black ink as described
in the specifications at a cost of $930.00 and $3100.00, respectively.

c. The award was made to the contractor on September 13, 1977, and Purchase Orders C-8480 and
C-8481 were issued and sent along with the material furnished to contractor - the "Reprint Copy"
for the officer's and enlisted men's types of decal.

d. The contractor, in accordance with the schedule delivered both categories of bumper decals to
the customer agency, U.S. Navy, NPPSO, Nor. Div., 830 Third Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y., on October 17,

e. Inspection of the shipment by U.S. Navy officials disclosed that the decals were printed
incorrectly; they contained the U.S. Marine Corps insignia instead of the U.S. Navy insignia.  They
refused to accept the shipment.  The U.S. Navy rejected the sample of repair prepared by the
contractor which consisted of superimposing the U.S. Navy insignia over the U.S. Marine Corp

f. The Contracting Officer, by letter dated December 2, 1977, informed the contractor that the
referenced two orders were required to be reprinted in accordance with the specifications.  The
contractor acknowledged receipt of the Contracting Officer's letter on December 6, 1977, and agreed
to rerun the two orders, reserving the right to appeal the Contracting Officer's decision and to
submit documents and information to support its contention that it printed the initial order as per
the original sample (U.S. Marine Corp insignia) shipped by GPO.

g. On April 11, 1978, the contractor submitted supporting documents and information in support of
its appeal.  It authorized the Contract Appeals Board on June 30, and July 18, 1978,to proceed
without a hearing and without offering further evidence in support of its appeal.

II.  Opinion

The immediate question in this appeal is to resolve the following dispute: the contractor stresses
in its supporting documents that GPO upon issuing Purchase Orders C-8480 and C-8481, enclosed one
printed sample, consisting of a U.S. Marine Corp decal to be used for reproduction, while the GPO
asserts that it forwarded to appellant one separate reprint copy of the U.S. Navy insignia for each

The specifications must be construed to give effect to all their provisions and the appellant is
chargeable with such knowledge of facts concerning the work to be performed.  The description in
the two purchase orders refers to the reprint copy to be furnished to the contractor by GPO for
each order and that the sample decals were scheduled to be returned to the Navy installation with
shipment of both orders.  The contractor was on notice that 3,000 copies of decals were designated
as "officer's decal (blue)"and 10,000 were designated as "enlisted men decals (red)".

Thus assuming that the contractor only received one decal, as it asserts, it should clearly
identify what it believes to be the ambiguity, and give the Contracting Officer adequate notice
that it did not receive the copy for both orders.

However, U.S. Navy personnel strongly assert that they supplied the GPO with the two appropriate
U.S. Navy insignia and GPO stresses it strictly complied with the specifications when forwarding
them to the contractor together with the purchase orders.  This tends to be supported by the
contractor's shipping memo or delivery receipts submitted with each shipment on October 17, 1977,
which contain the notation "1 original sample returned."  Despite this,the contractor insists that
the original sample was not included in the shipment.

The course of dealing between by the parties on previous contracts is noted.  The evidence
discloses that the appellant had previously printed for GPO decals with the U.S. Marine Corp
insignia and thus may have inadvertently used the negatives for the U.S. Navy decals.  The weight
of the evidence clearly reveals that the Department of the Navy submitted the U.S. Navy original
decals to GPO, consisting of two separate copies for each order.  The GPO delivered them to the
contractor.  It is not credible that officials at a U.S. Navy installation would send any other
type of military "Reprint copy" decal, than its own for use at a U.S. Navy installation.

Accordingly, it is concluded that the appellant failed to comply with the specifications.

III. Decision

In view of the foregoing the appeal is denied.